Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 7:50 am Post subject: people have the right to die how they choose?

If people have the right to live how they choose, do they also have the right to die how they choose?

Many patients are suffering from terrible diseases, and some of them actually wanna die so as to get rid of their pains. but not all patients can die how they choose. for example, in China, Euthanasia isn't allowed yet. so many patients have to go through their terrible miseries before his clock shikes.

IMHO, I think all patients have such rights to choose how to die. because they don't have to experience those terrible pains from diseases.

I saw some doctors talking about an old man, and that he has no chance any more to survive.
So they decided to kill him, and however, I saw that old man shaking with his hands before the doctors took him away, maybe to signalise that he was still alive.
.

are you serious? that's murder!! so scary!

and IMHO, I think people have the rights to choose the way they die when they have no chance to survive. Why should they suffer from that terrible miseries anyway?

Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2005 2:19 pm Post subject: Re: people have the right to die how they choose?

RedRose wrote:

Euthanasia isn't allowed yet. so many patients have to go through their terrible miseries before his clock strikes.

IMHO, I think all patients have such rights to choose how to die. because they don't have to experience those terrible pains from diseases.

I don't think that a "right to die" is the real issue, but rather a right to a quality and pain-free life, and how it relates to your responsibilities as a healer.

If a person wants to truly die, they will find a way to make it happen. I don't think that a doctor has any duty or responsibility to make it happen. A doctor should fight against death, not partner with it.
That being said, for all of us, death will win the battle someday. If a person is deathly ill and the doctor has exhausted all of her skills, the least she could do is find a way to give the dying person relief from their suffering. Give them enough morphine to hide the pain and allow them to slip into a peaceful fog for their last days or hours. It will allow a more peaceful and dignified death than being wracked with pain, and the morphine itself will probably bring it quicker anyway (a merciful side effect, though that is not the goal).
When death is inevitable, it is not the duty of a healer to hasten it, it is the duty of a healer to make it peaceful.

Bob, I am sure you don't really know how patients feel when death and pain are coming to them anyway. and human being still can't make a breakthough in some diseases, such as cancer, lyssa.

When these patients are approaching the end of life, the severe pain will inenvitably torture them.

When I mentioned "right to die", I was saying that a patient should have the right, I didn't mean that a doctor must be the one executing the procedure.

Quote:

Give them enough morphine to hide the pain and allow them to slip into a peaceful fog for their last days or hours.

that is done to a dying patient of course. however, when next pain is coming, the patient has to go through a patch of pain again and the pain dosen't mean anything but hopeless struggle and suffering. and the patients actually is approaching death very closely.

Quote:

If a person wants to truly die, they will find a way to make it happen.

It is impossible. Doctors and nurses would watch and take care of a dying patient all day long! these dying patients live in ICU, under serious control and stakeout. they have no chance to find a way.

in short, what I emphasize is that a patient should have such a right when he/she really dosen't wanna suffer from misery anymore. it isn't about who should be the one executing it.

Bob, I am sure you don't really know how patients feel when death and pain are coming to them anyway. and human being still can't make a breakthough in some diseases, such as cancer, lyssa.

When these patients are approaching the end of life, the severe pain will inenvitably torture them.

I've had to sit a deathbed vigil before. I know a little of what I'm talking about. When it was clear there was no hope of recovery, the doctors and nurses mercifully kept her pumped so full of morphine, she slept peacefully till the end.

[I've had to sit a deathbed vigil before. I know a little of what I'm talking about. When it was clear there was no hope of recovery, the doctors and nurses mercifully kept her pumped so full of morphine, she slept peacefully till the end.

If this patient asks for morphine, why can't Doctors and nurses give him? however, if this patient dosen't want morphine, I mean, if he rejects morphine or he tells doctors:"please don't give me too much morphine." that's ok.

I have never seen any Doctor did what you told like this, without the patient's consent.

Quote:

the doctors and nurses mercifully kept her pumped so full of morphine, she slept peacefully till the end

I mean, if a doctor kills a patient like that, that actually mean murder, not euthanasia.

but when a patient can't speak or express himself anymore, then how do you decide if he should die becaus ethere's no recovery possible or if he should stay alive?

how can a doctor trust a fa,ily member when there's the possibility that this member just wants to heir?

it may be a cruel thought, but when for a patient there's really no chance, not even a slight one, to recover, should one let him stay in the hospital, alive (if you can call it so) and occupying a hospital bed that may save another life? i've heard that some hospitaly have to reject patient becaus ethere are no beds left. so should a patient who might have a real chance to recover die because another one "has to live"?

and, by the way, some kinds of cancer aren't absolutely lethal anymore. there are researches and even already some medicaments to prevent, heal cancer or at least make it chronical.

RedRose wrote:

I have never seen any Doctor did what you told like this, without the patient's consent. I mean, if a doctor kills a patient like that, that actually mean murder, not euthanasia.

But today's healing possibilities are so much better than some decades ago, so people can already live longer (much longer) then they could if they lived decades ago. so their natural death is already delayed. if there's really no recovery in sight, then, see above, can you really answer for letting him stay alive?!

greets _________________Don't cry because it's over - smile because it happened!
MOKEY ROCKS!!!

I have never seen any Doctor did what you told like this, without the patient's consent.
I mean, if a doctor kills a patient like that, that actually mean murder, not euthanasia.

The morphine was to ease the pain of labored breathing. And of course it numbed her mind. When her breathing became difficult again, we gave the nurse and doctor permission to give her more. Why should they object? There was nothing more they could do to stop the cancer. And sometime during the night, the drugs mercifully allowed her to "forget" to breathe. And thus ended a long painful fight.

If a person wishes to stay lucid till the very end, that is their choice. But if death is inevitable, there are far worse ways to die than in a peaceful drug-induced coma.

it may be a cruel thought, but when for a patient there's really no chance, not even a slight one, to recover, should one let him stay in the hospital, alive (if you can call it so) and occupying a hospital bed that may save another life?

this's a complicated question....hard to answer.

But in my case, I have never let a dying patient go home just because he/she had no chance to survive. IMHO, a dying patient has as precious life as another patient who has a chance to survive. although the former's life is shorter than the latter's, however, as the same human being, both should receive the same treatment and respect; none should be discriminated or given up.

Is the issue about 'right to die' or is it about physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia legalization? You see, these things differ.

As a matter of fact, everyone has right to die. This right is natural and inalienable.

As for PAS legalization, the matter needs to be seriously discussed. We all should remember that complete legalization will likely entail severe after-effects like abuse and discrimination.

As population ages government needs to spend more on various social and medical programs more costs year after year. Is PAS legalization not the way to preserve costs? Or consider terminally ill patient's relatives who have had enough of endless nursing. Will there be strong obstention not to request *legal* asisisted suicide or euthanasia?_________________I work here --> Custom Research Writing Help

They legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in the 80s. To protect patients from abuse they invented safeguards, regulations that they thought would protect ther poor, patients with mental and physical disorders, etc. from potential abuse, but... it didn't work.

Today, though euthanasia is not that popular there, people got used to cases of abuse that relate to euthanasia in medical institutions._________________I work here --> Custom Research Writing Help

If this patient asks for morphine, why can't Doctors and nurses give him? however, if this patient dosen't want morphine, I mean, if he rejects morphine or he tells doctors:"please don't give me too much morphine." that's ok.

Every physician takes Hippocratic Oath that states: "I shall not harm" and "I won't administer drugs that will result in lethal outcome, even if asked.." or something like that _________________I work here --> Custom Research Writing Help